Post by ProfessorKat on Sept 1, 2013 4:09:02 GMT
In the Constitution of the United States, the 2nd Amendment clearly states:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Which means, that the United States Government is not allowed to infringe upon that right. In fact, the oath of office for the President of the United States, is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."
The oath of office for the Vice President, as well as members of the United States Senate, is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Which means that any member of any of the 3 branches of government, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, who actively supports gun control, is in violation of their oath of office.
There are 3 main reasons that the rights of Americans to carry a gun should not be infringed upon. We need guns to protect ourselves from the following 3 things.
1- Tyranny from our government.
2- Invasion from foreign governments.
3- Crime.
Now you gotta look at the statistics. Look at places where there are very strict gun laws. Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And also one of the most dangerous cities. Now look at countries like Sweden. 1 in 2 citizens carries a gun. Lowest crime rate in the world.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Not only is violating those rights of law abiding citizens exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers warned us about, but it also disarms them and gives them no means of self-defense from those who will carry regardless of any such law, and in fact, empowers them against those who won't carry.
If someone with a gun wants to rob a bank, they're going to have a lot more luck in a place with strict gun laws, because you most likely wouldn't find anyone else there with a gun. So therefore it empowers them against everyone else. But, if they want to rob a bank in a place where there aren't any strict gun laws, and everyone else in that bank has a gun, 1 gun won't get them far against 30 other people if all 30 of those people have a gun.
It's sad that after certain tragic shootings, that the government and media wants to use such unfortunate events as an excuse to further push their gun control agendas, which will only make the situation worse. The problem isn't guns themselves. It's what bad people do with them. And the fact that so many potential heroes are disarmed from being able to as effectively defend themselves and others from those who will use them for malicious intentions.
There are some things which could sound good in theory. However, the facts and statistics have proven time and time again that gun control is a dangerous agenda.
Should I ever be killed in the line of duty by an armed gunman, and any politician or who ever tries to push stricter gun laws on my behalf, know that it wasn't the guns that were the problem. It's the fact that I live in a state with strict gun laws, and that I likely didn't have a gun to be able to defend myself as easily without a gun. And we live in a nation where the current President of the United States and the liberal members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and other members of government want to violate our 2nd Amendment rights that have been granted to us by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
No, Americans don't need background checks. While that would sound nice in theory to some, in practice it's unconstitutional. It violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects "against warantless searches and seizures" due to the need that our Founding Fathers recognized, that people should have the right to privacy. I fail to see how such a concept isn't unconstitutional.
And illegalizing automatic weapons? What about those who aren't as skilled with a hand gun, and only have 10 rounds, but needs to protect against an armed thief who breaks in to their home armed with an AK-47? A handgun wouldn't be as effective.
When you see politicians start to misinterpret the Constitution, violate it, and deceive America about why what they're doing is alright, give bull$#&% lies that they "respect the constitution" while it's clearly evident that they don't respect it at all, you set us back to where we started back before the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The very reason that the United States of America was formed was so that we could have freedom from such forms of tyranny.
Back to the Gun Control issue. Gun Safety and Gun Control AREN'T the same thing. Gun Safety has nothing to do with the laws. It has to do with common sense. Gun Control is a flawed concept.
Adolph Hitler once said: "If you want to conquer a nation, you must first disarm it's citizens."
Not only would allowing people to access and carry guns more easily decease crime, and thus help the economy and government budget more by reducing the high cost that crime has on society, but having more gun stores open in more places would also help give more jobs to more people and thus help the economy more that way too.
No, gun control doesn't keep police safer, neither. It just makes their jobs more dangerous. And when their communities suffer because of the crime, so does the economy there, and stores begin to close down, which means (high taxes are never good, but since a certain percentage of any business' earnings go to the government, and more businesses would closing down, they have less amounts of businesses there to help out with that, so then the government's budget suffers, and thus they start having to lay off more officers. Which then makes it harder for them to combat crime.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Which means, that the United States Government is not allowed to infringe upon that right. In fact, the oath of office for the President of the United States, is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."
The oath of office for the Vice President, as well as members of the United States Senate, is:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."
Which means that any member of any of the 3 branches of government, be it Executive, Legislative, or Judicial, who actively supports gun control, is in violation of their oath of office.
There are 3 main reasons that the rights of Americans to carry a gun should not be infringed upon. We need guns to protect ourselves from the following 3 things.
1- Tyranny from our government.
2- Invasion from foreign governments.
3- Crime.
Now you gotta look at the statistics. Look at places where there are very strict gun laws. Chicago for example. Some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. And also one of the most dangerous cities. Now look at countries like Sweden. 1 in 2 citizens carries a gun. Lowest crime rate in the world.
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Not only is violating those rights of law abiding citizens exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers warned us about, but it also disarms them and gives them no means of self-defense from those who will carry regardless of any such law, and in fact, empowers them against those who won't carry.
If someone with a gun wants to rob a bank, they're going to have a lot more luck in a place with strict gun laws, because you most likely wouldn't find anyone else there with a gun. So therefore it empowers them against everyone else. But, if they want to rob a bank in a place where there aren't any strict gun laws, and everyone else in that bank has a gun, 1 gun won't get them far against 30 other people if all 30 of those people have a gun.
It's sad that after certain tragic shootings, that the government and media wants to use such unfortunate events as an excuse to further push their gun control agendas, which will only make the situation worse. The problem isn't guns themselves. It's what bad people do with them. And the fact that so many potential heroes are disarmed from being able to as effectively defend themselves and others from those who will use them for malicious intentions.
There are some things which could sound good in theory. However, the facts and statistics have proven time and time again that gun control is a dangerous agenda.
Should I ever be killed in the line of duty by an armed gunman, and any politician or who ever tries to push stricter gun laws on my behalf, know that it wasn't the guns that were the problem. It's the fact that I live in a state with strict gun laws, and that I likely didn't have a gun to be able to defend myself as easily without a gun. And we live in a nation where the current President of the United States and the liberal members of the Senate, House of Representatives, and other members of government want to violate our 2nd Amendment rights that have been granted to us by the Founding Fathers of the United States.
No, Americans don't need background checks. While that would sound nice in theory to some, in practice it's unconstitutional. It violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution, which protects "against warantless searches and seizures" due to the need that our Founding Fathers recognized, that people should have the right to privacy. I fail to see how such a concept isn't unconstitutional.
And illegalizing automatic weapons? What about those who aren't as skilled with a hand gun, and only have 10 rounds, but needs to protect against an armed thief who breaks in to their home armed with an AK-47? A handgun wouldn't be as effective.
When you see politicians start to misinterpret the Constitution, violate it, and deceive America about why what they're doing is alright, give bull$#&% lies that they "respect the constitution" while it's clearly evident that they don't respect it at all, you set us back to where we started back before the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776. The very reason that the United States of America was formed was so that we could have freedom from such forms of tyranny.
Back to the Gun Control issue. Gun Safety and Gun Control AREN'T the same thing. Gun Safety has nothing to do with the laws. It has to do with common sense. Gun Control is a flawed concept.
Adolph Hitler once said: "If you want to conquer a nation, you must first disarm it's citizens."
Not only would allowing people to access and carry guns more easily decease crime, and thus help the economy and government budget more by reducing the high cost that crime has on society, but having more gun stores open in more places would also help give more jobs to more people and thus help the economy more that way too.
No, gun control doesn't keep police safer, neither. It just makes their jobs more dangerous. And when their communities suffer because of the crime, so does the economy there, and stores begin to close down, which means (high taxes are never good, but since a certain percentage of any business' earnings go to the government, and more businesses would closing down, they have less amounts of businesses there to help out with that, so then the government's budget suffers, and thus they start having to lay off more officers. Which then makes it harder for them to combat crime.